Balbir Singh Vs. Shabadjit Singh and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1120934
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-24-2014
AppellantBalbir Singh
RespondentShabadjit Singh and Others
Excerpt:
cr no.546 of 2014 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cr no.546 of 2014 date of decision: 24.01.2014 balbir singh ....petitioner versus shabadjit singh and others ....respondents coram:- hon'ble mr.justice rajiv narain raina present: mr.m.p.s.mann, advocate, for the petitioner. 1. to be referred to the reporters or not?. 2. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. rajiv narain raina, j.(oral) defendant complains before this court as petitioner that despite the trial court having ruled against the plaintiff and calling upon him to pay ad valorem court fee and then fixing a date for making good the deficient court fee affixed to the plaint, the plaintiffs have been unecessarily allowed six adjournments starting from 21st october, 2013 to do the needful and even now time has been extended up to the firs.week of february, 2014 to do so. against this indulgence, the petitioner complains that he is suffering needless harassment and the trial court ought to have taken a stricter view of the matter and should have dismissed the suit for non-compliance of the basic order not called in question in a superior court. the prayer in the petition is such that it may not require notice to the opposite party since, in any case, this court exercises supervisory jurisdiction over the trial court and can always command through proper orders and directions deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case mittal manju 2014.01.27 15:49 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cr no.546 of 2014 -2- presented before this court to attach finality to its own order. if it is not the case that the plaintiff has obtained a stay order from this court against the order passed in the application under order 7 rule 11, cpc presented by the defendant then the trial court is directed to compel the plaintiff to affix ad valorem court fee on the date next fixed by it, after the date fixed in february, 2014 and failing which to terminate the proceedings forthwith. with these directions, the revision petition stands disposed of. (rajiv narain raina) judge2401.2014 manju mittal manju 2014.01.27 15:49 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CR No.546 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.546 of 2014 Date of Decision: 24.01.2014 Balbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus Shabadjit Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr.M.P.S.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner.

1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(Oral) Defendant complains before this Court as petitioner that despite the trial Court having ruled against the plaintiff and calling upon him to pay ad valorem court fee and then fixing a date for making good the deficient court fee affixed to the plaint, the plaintiffs have been unecessarily allowed six adjournments starting from 21st October, 2013 to do the needful and even now time has been extended up to the fiRs.week of February, 2014 to do so.

Against this indulgence, the petitioner complains that he is suffering needless harassment and the trial Court ought to have taken a stricter view of the matter and should have dismissed the suit for non-compliance of the basic order not called in question in a superior court.

The prayer in the petition is such that it may not require notice to the opposite party since, in any case, this Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction over the trial Court and can always command through proper orders and directions deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case Mittal Manju 2014.01.27 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.546 of 2014 -2- presented before this Court to attach finality to its own order.

If it is not the case that the plaintiff has obtained a stay order from this Court against the order passed in the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC presented by the defendant then the trial Court is directed to compel the plaintiff to affix ad valorem court fee on the date next fixed by it, after the date fixed in February, 2014 and failing which to terminate the proceedings forthwith.

With these directions, the revision petition stands disposed of.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE2401.2014 manju Mittal Manju 2014.01.27 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh